classic study: sherif Flashcards
What is the name of the experiment?
The Robbers’ Cave Experiment
What years did it take place?
1954, 1961
What kind of series’s were there?
A series of boy’s summer camp experiments (field experiment) to investigate intergroup conflict.
Each study followed the same format
10-12 year old boys
Attending a 2 week summer group
Divided into 2 groups
Made to compete against one another
Behaviour of the boys observed and recorded to examine how competition brought conflict
Aim of study
To investigate intergroup relations between groups, over period of time when various situations were introduced. Specifically introduced in group formation, the effect of competition and how conflict could be resolved
How many people were there and what was the same about all of them?
22 x 11 year old boys (1 was 12 years old) took part in the field study. All of them were white American middle-class Protestants, from schools in Oklahoma City. The boys did not know one another before the study.
Where were the boys transported and what happened?
They were transported in two groups to the Robbers’ Cave National Park in Oklahoma. The boys were not introduced to one another at the start (two groups lived separately at the camp), but divided equally into groups using information obtained from parents and teachers about educational and athletic ability.
What was the first stage of the procedure?
In-group formation: for 5-6 days each group was given tasks to carry out together in order to help in-group formation. The 2 groups were separate from one another, with researchers (boys thought they were camp staff) observing verbal and non-verbal behaviour and relationships which emerged.
Sociometric data (quantitative data gathered about personal/social relationships) was gathered on how the boys rated each other in terms of popularity, initiative, etc.
What was the second stage to the procedure?
In-group relations, the friction phase (competition): over next 4-6 days boys were brought into contact with each other.
There were competitions between groups for attractive prizes such as penknives.
Necessary for each member of group to participate in competition to win points towards tournament total.
Groups were subjected to orchestrated situations which they would find frustrating and believed them to be caused by the other group.
Stereotypes were recorded that were shown by the groups, with behaviours and attitudes towards each group being noted.
What was the third stage to the procedure?
Inter-group relations, the integration (superordinate goals): final 6-7 days were devoted to bring conflict resolution through the introduction of common goals designed to ensure cooperation between groups.
Three problem situations were set up that could only be resolved if the groups worked together cooperatively:
1. Fixing the water tank which provided water to both groups
2. Joint camp-over where group members had to work together for food and sleeping gear
3. Starting the broken down camp bus
What results were shown during stage 1?
The boys bonded within their groups, forming their own group norms and rules (group identity)
Took part in cooperative activities and gave themselves group names: Rattlers & Eagles
At the end of this stage, groups were made aware of the other’s existence and formation of an ‘us’ and ‘them’ attitude emerged.
What results were shown during stage 2?
Competition led to immediate hostility.
Leaders emerged from each group and became very territorial.
Eagles refused to eat with the Rattlers.
When all were together they would shout insults at each other and it was reported by observers to get close to physical violence.
When the tournament was announced, boys began to fight; name calling and the Eagles burned Rattlers flag.
Strong sense of in-group favouritism and negative out-group bias present.
When asked to self-report who their friends were out of all the boys, 93% exclusively selected from their own group.
What results were shown at stage 3?
Early activities in stage 3, which involved just getting the groups together without competition (meal times, watching movie), did not reduce hostility - name calling and fighting still present.
However, joint problem solving task did reduce hostility.
Tasks involving superordinate goals were introduced.
First task was fixing water tank. Boys divided up and had role to play in identifying the cause of the damp water shortage. When blockage was identified, boys were observed mingling with each other and no longer name calling.
However, harmony did not last long and boys soon displayed negative out-group bias during supper that same evening.
Boys were then told they could secure a movie if they collectively paid for it. Worked out a strategy for payment, reducing hostility shown at supper that evening and next morning at breakfast.
Boys worked together to pull the camp bus, researchers reassessed friendship choices.
Found that 30% had friends between groups which shows a reduction in prejudice.
Conclusion of study
Sherif et al. concluded that strong in-group identities were formed initially, and with competition, negative out-group bias quickly emerged.
Introduction of superordinate goals had a cumulative effect in reducing negative out-group bias because it removed competition.
The study supports REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY that prejudice can arise if there is competition for resources.
Weakness: generalisability
Study is androcentric and ethnocentric as ppts were all white, middle class, 11 year old boys, so generalisation to females or American population as a whole is not possible
Strengths: reliability
high level of control and careful planning. Staff were ppt observers, so boys were unaware that their behaviour was being recorded. There is less possibility of demand characteristics as ppts were unaware they are taking part and so less likely to ‘act up’.
Sample was carefully selected based on gender, age, IQ scores, social class & religion, groups were matched, accounting for individual differences in character and attributes affected behaviour.
